Skip to main content

Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form

Abstract

Course planning is an important faculty role requiring expertise and effective decision-making. Despite the centrality of planning activities in the teaching-learning process, relatively little research has explored the process by which instructors in higher education plan their classes. Thus, the author and colleagues pursued a three-year series of studies of college instructors in the US who were teaching introductory classes. The study explored faculty members' underlying assumptions about planning and their decision-making processes. This chapter summarizes these empirical studies that inform us about the general and discipline-specific purposes faculty express for their classes, the contextual influences that modify their intentions, and the way they arrange discipline content for teaching. A key finding was that differences in course planning reflect varied assumptions about students and about their discipline that faculty in different fields bring to the planning process and which strongly influence them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Andresen, L., Barrett, E., Powell, J. & Wieneke, C. (1985). Planning and monitoring courses: University teachers reflect on their teaching. Instructional Science 13: 305–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty, Second Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J.M. & Hargens, L.L. (1996). Variations among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J.C. Smart, ed, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol XI. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, J.G. (1983). Knowledge structures: Methods for exploring course content. Journal of Higher Education 54: 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, J.G. (1990). University professors' views of knowledge and validation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 242–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, P. & Marcus, D. (1982). Teaching and Learning in College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E.W. & Vallance, E.C., eds (1974). Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eljamal, M., Stark, J.S., Sharp, S., Arnold, G. & Lowther, M.A. (1998). Listening for disciplinary differences in faculty goals for effective teaching. Journal of General Education 47: 117–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eljamal, M., Stark, J.S., Arnold, G.L. & Sharp, S. (1999). Intellectual development: A complex teaching goal. Studies in Higher Education 24: 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, J. & Theall, M. (1992). Disciplinary differences: Instructional goals and activities, measures of student performance, and student ratings of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April.

  • Hativa, N. (1993). Attitudes towards instruction of faculty in mathematics and the physical sciences: Discipline-and situation-specific teaching patterns. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 24: 579–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hativa, N. (1997). Teaching in a research university: Professors' conceptions, practices, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March.

  • Lowther, M.A., Stark, J.S., Genthon, M.L. & Bentley, R.J. (1990). Comparing introductory course planning among full-time and part-time faculty. Research in Higher Education 31(6): 495–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson-Laird, T.F. (1998) Student-centered influences on planning introductory college courses: gender and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, Florida.

  • Phenix, P. (1964). Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy of the Curriculum for General Education. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. & Rudnitsky, A. (1986). Course Design: A Guide to Curriculum Development for Teachers, 3rd edition. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. & Strike, K. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Review of Educational Research 46(4): 665–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J.P. & Shanker, V.S. (1982). The course planning and monitoring activities of a university teacher. Higher Education 11: 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J.C. & Ethington, C.A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovich, eds, Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 64, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S. (1998). Classifying professional preparation programs. Journal of Higher Education 69(4): 353–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S. & Lattuca, L.R. (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Action. Needham Hghts, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Bentley, R.J., Ryan, M.P., Genthon, M.L., Martens, G.G. & Wren, P.A. (1990a). Planning Introductory College Courses: Influences on Faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Ryan, M.P., Bomotti, S.S., Genthon, M.L., Martens, G.G. & Haven, C.L. (1988a). Reflections on Course Planning: Faculty and Students Consider Influences and Goals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Bentley, R.J. & Martens, G.G. (1990b). Disciplinary differences in course planning. Review of Higher Education 13(2): 141–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A. Ryan, M.P. & Genthon, M.L. (1988b). Faculty reflect on course planning. Research in Higher Education 29(3): 219–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Sharp, S. & Arnold, G.L. (1997). Program-level curriculum planning: An exploration of faculty perspectives on two different campuses. Research in Higher Education 38(1): 99–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J.S. & Shaw, K.M. (1990). Do College Faculty Report Different Influences when Planning Introductory and Advanced Courses? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielens, W., Jr. (1987). The disciplines and undergraduate lecturing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, April.

  • Toombs, W. (1977–1978). The application of design-based curriculum analysis to general education. Higher Education Review 1: 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warme B. & Lundy, K. (1988). Erosion of an idea: The presence of part-time faculty. Studies in Higher Education 13(2): 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 315–327. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stark, J.S. Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form. Instructional Science 28, 413–438 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026516231429

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026516231429

  • course planning
  • curriculum
  • faculty